Talk:Gerald Ford: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen mNo edit summary |
imported>Stephen Ewen mNo edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::lots of links are useless. Links to common words should not be linked --they distract the readers and are no help if hey actually click there (for example I deleted useless links to "paint" "adoption" "[[Practice of law|law practice]] "[[Community service|community work]]", "veto," "secretary of state" [[International relations|foreign affairs]], [[Michigan]], etc. I am following the CZ policy: '''Therefore, there is a general (not infallible) rule for determining whether a link is appropriate or helpful: If our target audience would find that the article linked-to illuminates the present article, then we should link to it.''' [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 03:00, 7 November 2007 (CST) | ::lots of links are useless. Links to common words should not be linked --they distract the readers and are no help if hey actually click there (for example I deleted useless links to "paint" "adoption" "[[Practice of law|law practice]] "[[Community service|community work]]", "veto," "secretary of state" [[International relations|foreign affairs]], [[Michigan]], etc. I am following the CZ policy: '''Therefore, there is a general (not infallible) rule for determining whether a link is appropriate or helpful: If our target audience would find that the article linked-to illuminates the present article, then we should link to it.''' [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 03:00, 7 November 2007 (CST) | ||
Most seem ''quite'' relevant. Especially [[Elizabeth Ford]] which was removed. And how is someone from, say, Japan going to understand [[desegregation busing]] as common? [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:41, 7 November 2007 (CST) | Most seem ''quite'' relevant. Especially [[Elizabeth Ford]] which was removed. And how is someone from, say, Japan, or mostly white European countries going to understand [[desegregation busing]] as common? [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:41, 7 November 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 03:48, 7 November 2007
Red links
It is mysterious to me why RJ would remove carefully placed redlinks on major topics, given CZ:Article_Mechanics#Do_link_to_nonexistent_articles. Stephen Ewen 02:44, 7 November 2007 (CST)
- lots of links are useless. Links to common words should not be linked --they distract the readers and are no help if hey actually click there (for example I deleted useless links to "paint" "adoption" "law practice "community work", "veto," "secretary of state" foreign affairs, Michigan, etc. I am following the CZ policy: Therefore, there is a general (not infallible) rule for determining whether a link is appropriate or helpful: If our target audience would find that the article linked-to illuminates the present article, then we should link to it. Richard Jensen 03:00, 7 November 2007 (CST)
Most seem quite relevant. Especially Elizabeth Ford which was removed. And how is someone from, say, Japan, or mostly white European countries going to understand desegregation busing as common? Stephen Ewen 03:41, 7 November 2007 (CST)